re: How does an Australian journalist support the claim?
Uh...the links are given in the article to the original sources?
Of course, I suppose it's possible he could have gone out and constructed the webpages out of whole cloth to make fake links, but that seems like a lot of work to me.
Look:
Orsekes' study was fuzzy at best. These were her definitions:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
In other words, any paper that didn't actually argue that change might be natural was put into the "endorsement" category under "implicit." Any scientist that was agnostic on the issue would likely find himself a believer. Note that her judgment is the only factor here, and we have a pretty good idea how she wanted the data to come out.
"Disagreed with the consensus position" would seem to require a scientist to be certain there was no human-caused global warming. I have rarely seen this position taken even by those scientists who have problems with the current views.
If this were an astronomical argument, you would be looking for scientists willing to state for a fact that there is no life in outer space. Who would be foolish enough to take that position, even if they had no certainty on the other side either?
Putting scientists with other views on climate change in the same league as those who claimed we haven't landed on the Moon is asinine: Bowser material. You are correct that there are no working scientists who say we haven't landed on the Moon. On the other hand, there are working scientists who have problems with "the consensus." Maybe they aren't the same thing?
I know for a fact that there are reputable scientists with concerns about the direction this issue is going, who aren't sure about the "consensus," and have pointed out areas where it's apparent that a lot more work is needed before going off half-cocked. I've quoted some of them here. That they are a minority is obvious. That they have gotten crap for their views is also obvious.
This case is typical.
I think the fact that you're the one here doing most of the waving of the torches and pitchforks says a lot.